The subject of DNA came up, and to discuss it to the point I wanted would have derailed that on going subject. So those who would like to bring the DNA subject here, here's a thread for it.

A couple of questions I asked at the other thread that I wanted to discuss more was: Which came first, DNA or the organs?
How would that complicate things if the organs came first?
And how could you prove which came first?

It could be that long, but it's highly condensed. DNA is curled and wrapped around proteins called histones in the nucleus. It works on the same idea as a ball of yarn.

Organs are composed of cells which are made of DNA. Organs would not be able to exist if DNA did not exist. It's as simple as a log cabin. You can't have the cabin existing before the logs exist because take away the logs, and there is no log cabin.

The speclation is that RNA is the precursor of DNA, and that such structures can exist because of hydrogen bonding, ionic bonding and Van der Waals interactions. There's no definite explanation on how exactly they evolved, but scientists are looking into it.

Complexity does not mean that randomness couldn't have created it. Complexity can exist when things pile up. You can take a bunch of lego blocks and pile them up in several different combinations. As long as you've got lots of them, you can create something complex, no matter how you put them together.

We've already figured out the "code". Three nucleotide bases is a codon, and one codon codes for an amino acid. It's not really that complex; a tRNA molecule will only be able to bind to one type of amino acid, depending on its codon.

There's nothing about requirement in DNA. That's just what scientists have found, and what it does. They've observed replication of DNA, and what happens when it is denatured, or otherwise mutated and altered. If you want to believe that certain diseases aren't genetic, go right ahead; but there are people who have received gene therapy and benefitted from it.

It could be that long, but it's highly condensed. DNA is curled and wrapped around proteins called histones in the nucleus. It works on the same idea as a ball of yarn.

Organs are composed of cells which are made of DNA. Organs would not be able to exist if DNA did not exist. It's as simple as a log cabin. You can't have the cabin existing before the logs exist because take away the logs, and there is no log cabin.

The speclation is that RNA is the precursor of DNA, and that such structures can exist because of hydrogen bonding, ionic bonding and Van der Waals interactions. There's no definite explanation on how exactly they evolved, but scientists are looking into it.

Complexity does not mean that randomness couldn't have created it. Complexity can exist when things pile up. You can take a bunch of lego blocks and pile them up in several different combinations. As long as you've got lots of them, you can create something complex, no matter how you put them together.

We've already figured out the "code". Three nucleotide bases is a codon, and one codon codes for an amino acid. It's not really that complex; a tRNA molecule will only be able to bind to one type of amino acid, depending on its codon.

There's nothing about requirement in DNA. That's just what scientists have found, and what it does. They've observed replication of DNA, and what happens when it is denatured, or otherwise mutated and altered. If you want to believe that certain diseases aren't genetic, go right ahead; but there are people who have received gene therapy and benefitted from it.

If the code has been completely figured out, as you suggest. Then it could be read like a book. We would have all the answers, even the origins answers because it would be locked in that code. But, questions still get asked.

If the code has been completely figured out, as you suggest. Then it could be read like a book. We would have all the answers, even the origins answers because it would be locked in that code. But, questions still get asked.

The "code" has been figured out in the sense that it only tells us what proteins the organism is capable of producing. Perhaps you should have been asking what we can do with the proteins. We have to find out what the structures of those proteins, or how they function, and how they are regulated. It may show evolutionary relationships by comparing them with the genetic code from a different organism, and what proteins are produced by that organism, but there is no requirement that that "code" has to say how the organism originated.

Organs are composed of cells which are made of DNA. Organs would not be able to exist if DNA did not exist. It's as simple as a log cabin. You can't have the cabin existing before the logs exist because take away the logs, and there is no log cabin.

I don't think this is correct.

Organ tissue is made of proteins, which are formed from information stored in DNA, but the cell tissue, is not DNA. Cells are alive, DNA is not.

Your analogy would be more like a log cabin where the logs not only exist, but also contain the information on how to build more logs, and where to place them.

There is no other source for the information in the logs except the logs themselves.

Not only do the logs contain the information for the logs, but also the rest of the house.

Complexity does not mean that randomness couldn't have created it. Complexity can exist when things pile up. You can take a bunch of lego blocks and pile them up in several different combinations. As long as you've got lots of them, you can create something complex, no matter how you put them together.

Complex means that that the diabolos is in the details. A bunch of piled up lego blocks is nothing more than that, and it takes little effort to explain, and understand it. Randomness can create these types of formations, but they have little meaning to the origin of life discussion.

We've already figured out the "code". Three nucleotide bases is a codon, and one codon codes for an amino acid. It's not really that complex; a tRNA molecule will only be able to bind to one type of amino acid, depending on its codon.

Actaully the code is redundant, and a few codons code for the same amino acid. I suppose the genetic code in and of itself is quite simple. The morse code is relatively simple, as is the alphabet, or the dance of the foraging honey bee. Like the later, the genetic code requires a mental origin, so while it may be simple in some sense, scientists will never find a materialistic origin for it, simply because there is none.

If you want to believe that certain diseases aren't genetic, go right ahead; but there are people who have received gene therapy and benefitted from it.

What prompted that statement?

As to the topic, its a good thing to consider, but I think evolutionists have only one choice, and that is that the instructions for the DNA came about by mutations, and somehow survived long enough to form an organ that had no use, until one day, it somehow had an use. I guess......

Complexity does not mean that randomness couldn't have created it. Complexity can exist when things pile up. You can take a bunch of lego blocks and pile them up in several different combinations. As long as you've got lots of them, you can create something complex, no matter how you put them together.

This is a common rationalization of evolutionary thinking. Randomness and complexity are mathematical concepts, not subjective terms. A house is not just another arrangement of logs, but it has symmetry, uniformity. Nature is not a random assembly of molecules, but demonstrates purpose and design. This is not disputable.

quote=Angelus-Tenebrae,Nov 28 2005, 06:41 AMThis is a common rationalization of evolutionary thinking. Randomness and complexity are mathematical concepts, not subjective terms. A house is not just another arrangement of logs, but it has symmetry, uniformity. Nature is not a random assembly of molecules, but demonstrates purpose and design. This is not disputable.

It can be random. There is no requirement that nature has purpose. There are things it can do, as we have thus far predicted, and things we wouldn't expect it to do, and wouldn't do. This does not indicate that it is required to have any purpose. The only "purpose" scientists can see in nature is that it functions according to predicted laws from science because it is most probable or logical. The randomness is in the probability--it is probable for something to happen in nature, but it is not impossible for the unlikely event to happen. As for why you feel that randomness can't exist, it's what natural selection does--it acts on variation and reduces randomness by ensuring that those who don't survive don't survive, and those who have certain variations that allow them to survive do.

One can make the argument that a house is not created by nature, and if it were symmetrical and uniform, it does not necessarily say anything about nature. I simply used the analogy of the log cabin to compare what the cabin is made of with what an organ is made of, and how their existence depends on the materials that make up the cabin or organ. Nothing more.

On another note, nature is not all uniform and symmetrical. You may see it as being such, but redundancy in organisms, entropy, bad weather and quantum suggests otherwise.

It can be random. There is no requirement that nature has purpose. There are things it can do, as we have thus far predicted, and things we wouldn't expect it to do, and wouldn't do. This does not indicate that it is required to have any purpose. The only "purpose" scientists can see in nature is that it functions according to predicted laws from science because it is most probable or logical. The randomness is in the probability--it is probable for something to happen in nature, but it is not impossible for the unlikely event to happen. As for why you feel that randomness can't exist, it's what natural selection does--it acts on variation and reduces randomness by ensuring that those who don't survive don't survive, and those who have certain variations that allow them to survive do.

One can make the argument that a house is not created by nature, and if it were symmetrical and uniform, it does not necessarily say anything about nature. I simply used the analogy of the log cabin to compare what the cabin is made of with what an organ is made of, and how their existence depends on the materials that make up the cabin or organ. Nothing more.

On another note, nature is not all uniform and symmetrical. You may see it as being such, but redundancy in organisms, entropy, bad weather and quantum suggests otherwise.

Take, for example, the supposed evolution of flight in birds. There is unidirectional change. This is not random. It requires innumerable sequential steps all headed in one direction... toward flight. I realize that ToE says that mutations are random, which is correct. However, when you consider the number of base pairs on a DNA molecule and the probability of so many fortuitous micromutations all leading to a purposeful end, then you're dealing with enormous improbabilities. Another example is the squid eye and the human eye... both of similar design but supposedly products of evolution by separate pathways. If such is the case, then it must be conceded that the number of pathways possible leading to vision is very limited.... thus purposeful change and therefore astronomically low probabilities. My point is that the end result of "evolution" is purposeful, not random.

Take, for example, the supposed evolution of flight in birds. There is unidirectional change. This is not random. It requires innumerable sequential steps all headed in one direction... toward flight. I realize that ToE says that mutations are random, which is correct. However, when you consider the number of base pairs on a DNA molecule and the probability of so many fortuitous micromutations all leading to a purposeful end, then you're dealing with enormous improbabilities. Another example is the squid eye and the human eye... both of similar design but supposedly products of evolution by separate pathways. If such is the case, then it must be conceded that the number of pathways possible leading to vision is very limited.... thus purposeful change and therefore astronomically low probabilities. My point is that the end result of "evolution" is purposeful, not random.

There are requirements for flight that must be met. Birds or other creatures that fly must have the right adaptations, or else it will not happen. But flight, as does terrestrial life has its benefits. Flight allows organisms to escape predators, or reach new habitats and compete more effectively against other organisms. You can call this a "purpose" if you will, but it's not necessarily a goal, and it is not required to be fulfilled. While lighter bones, feathers and adaptations in organs like the lungs and eyesight have to occur, these things can happen with variation. There are certainly birds, or common ancestors of birds that did not make it to flying because the variation of the trait they had was unfavorable, and any other bird that did not have the advantage of flight and competed against other birds would not survive as well. And natural selection comes into play again.Perhaps you mean that there are only four different bases, and therefore, a limited number of pairs that can be produced, but you shouldn't forget that DNA is very, very long. That is, you can create a lot of sequences and many combinations with them. It's not just mutation that alters DNA, but genetic recombination does this as well, and it does a better job than mutation does. This is because genetic recombination is not random, and because mates are selective. It's part of a different kind of selection called S@xual selection. This actually increases reproductive fitness.You're probably still wondering why it still happened, but I can explain that it's because we're not looking at individual groups of birds, but a whole population of birds. If there are lots of birds, there are more chances for variation to occur.

There could be a variable number of ways eyesight could have developed (you forgot eyespots; those were precursors for eyesight), but some of them might have been poor, and in competition with organisms with better adaptations, they would not fare well where eyesight is crucial to survival. So perhaps most of the variations in eyesight were actually worse for survival. But just because most variations in eyesight could have been unfavorable, it does not mean that variations in other traits are also unfavorable. Perhaps I might ask you why the "intelligent" designer would build a poor design of an eye for humans, yet give birds and squids better eyes.

"Purposeful" depends on the way you see it. Natural selection is "purposeful" in the sense that the organisms that survive will survive, and those who do not have the necessary adaptations will not. The only random factor is mutation.

But even if you were to look at the proteins, they came from DNA. DNA can be transcribed into mRNA, and mRNA translated with tRNA into proteins.

I think its worth being picky here..... The proteins do not come from the DNA. There are no protiens residing in DNA. The information to construct the protiens resides in DNA, but the protiens themselves are not there.

IOW, the information contained in DNA is an abstract representation of another object, i.e. various protiens.

An organ is not simply an organ by itself--it has a function, produces hormones, filters blood, absorbs nutrients, or any other function that organs do. If an organ did not have the DNA to produce hormones or proteins, they would not function properly. Either way, DNA is contained in the nucleus of cells, and whether DNA is dead or alive, cells require this genetic material to function. If they had no DNA, they would be incapable of reproducing, producing hormones or proteins, receiving hormones via receptors or removing substances with channels and protein carriers. These things are necessary for cell function, as well as the functions of organs.

Exactly, and if the cell does not exist to extract the information from DNA required to perform all of those functions, then DNA is useless. But, all of the cell function iteself is also encoded into DNA, so you have a viscous circle. The cell is an information processing system, and all of the parts are needed for it to work. So, we see even at the cellular level a chicken/egg situation. This is indeed an an argument for design, i.e. the cell as an information processing system.

I think its worth being picky here..... The proteins do not come from the DNA. There are no protiens residing in DNA. The information to construct the protiens resides in DNA, but the protiens themselves are not there.

I explained how I meant proteins came from DNA. I did not say that proteins reside in DNA. But I implied that protein synthesis of specific proteins involves DNA. Also, DNA interacts with proteins that help it to replicate, transcribe or translate.

IOW, the information contained in DNA is an abstract representation of another object, i.e. various protiens.

Not really. It's actually physical. The information is in the base pairs, but such an interaction that leads to protein synthesis and production of RNA is a physical one. The proteins and enzymes that help the DNA replicate and "read" the errors do not actually "understand" the code--it is only by chemical interactions that the protein "knows" what to do.

Exactly, and if the cell does not exist to extract the information from DNA required to perform all of those functions, then DNA is useless. But, all of the cell function iteself is also encoded into DNA, so you have a viscous circle. The cell is an information processing system, and all of the parts are needed for it to work. So, we see even at the cellular level a chicken/egg situation. This is indeed an an argument for design, i.e. the cell as an information processing system.

Terry

If you are speaking strictly on evolutionary terms, organs can arise from an endosymbiont relationship, or from colonization of unicellular organisms. In the case of colonization, specialization of groups of cells must occur because each individual cell cannot sustain itself within a colony. Wastes must be removed and nutrients distributed well within the cell. But because the cells inside a colony are blocked by the other cells from removing the wastes, it will die. But if you have one area of the colony where it is easier to expel the wastes, and specialization occurs, the cells can remove the wastes more efficiently. The components of an endosymbiont relationship are full, living cells, as it is with colonization. As such, the DNA is already existing in those cells.

On terms of abiogenesis, the proteins may have formed before the DNA, but it is not necessarily possible to conceive an organ being formed before DNA. An organ cannot function on its own because it is too specialized.

Just to make it clear, abiogenesis and evolution are not in conflict because abiogenesis may suggest that proteins form before DNA, and evolution suggests that proteins can be synthesized from RNA and DNA. It would be a non sequitur to say that all DNA can synthesize proteins, therefore all proteins come from DNA.